Saturday, July 21, 2007

I am a "wacko" 

And you are, too, I believe...

It behooves us to recognize this fact.

This is in reference to a New York (End)-Times shit-smear about the supporters of Ron Paul, who are depicted as a bunch of "wackos" with irreconcilable differences among themselves. A bunch of left-wing freak-job, right-wing conspiracy-theorist, religious fanatic "wackos" whose smallness and stupidity make them the easy objects of bemused, belittling observation from the lofty perch of the Times offices.

The fact is, there are some crazies in the Paul camp, and there are some major differences between Paul's left- and right-wing supporters. And I admit that I will certainly vote for anyone (Clinton, Bloomberg, Obama, Edwards) who has a chance to defeat Giuliani or Romney.

But none of this changes the fact that all of the major candidates operate within a system that is a relentless death-machine with no goal and no future beyond its own deadly self-perpetuation, and that the Paul campaign reveals a tiny opening--I think the only space--within the death machine's compacted gears and circuitry.

If there is a future, it is with the wackos--and that means the angry left, the libertarians, the former John Birch society members, the "consistent ethic of life" Christians who are against abortion and war, all anarchists and socialists, the dissatisfied former interns at the Cato Institute, the silly kids at UFPJ-sponsored protests, etc., etc. Something has to bring them (us) together.


What are Democrats supposed to do when the elite political classes smear themselves gleefully in shit such as that smeared today across the Washington Post editorial page?

THE SENATE Democratic leadership spent the past week trying to prove that Congress is deeply divided over Iraq, with Democrats pressing and Republicans resisting a change of course. In fact that's far from the truth. A large majority of senators from both parties favor a shift in the U.S. mission that would involve substantially reducing the number of American forces over the next year or so and rededicating those remaining to training the Iraqi army, protecting Iraq's borders and fighting al-Qaeda. President Bush and his senior aides and generals also support this broad strategy, which was formulated by the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission. Mr. Bush recently said that "it's a position I'd like to see us in."

...The decision of Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to deny rather than nourish a bipartisan agreement is, of course, irresponsible...

For now Mr. Reid's cynical politicking and willful blindness to the stakes in Iraq don't matter so much. The result of his maneuvering was to postpone congressional debate until September, when Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, will report on results of the surge -- in other words, just the outcome the White House was hoping for. But then, as now, the country will desperately need a strategy for Iraq that can count on broad bipartisan support, one aimed at carrying the U.S. mission through the end of the Bush administration and beyond...

There's no guarantee that Mr. Bush can agree with Congress on those points or that he will make the effort to do so. But a Democratic strategy of trying to use Iraq as a polarizing campaign issue and as a club against moderate Republicans who are up for reelection will certainly have the effect of making consensus impossible -- and deepening the trouble for Iraq and for American security.

To protest in any way, then, against an administration that has systematically refused to abide by any law or to consider any non-bloodbath-inducing position or to consult even Republican members of congress (much less Democrats), is to threaten "bi-partisanshit." (Sorry, I can't use the actual word, even with quotes--this is all too ridiculous. Why am I writing anything at all?)

Is the Post's gleeful shit-wallowing a real determining factor in the political environment? Does it alter the realm of the possible for the Democrats? If so, then what are they supposed to do?

How much pity do the Democrats deserve? We talk of the need for impeachment legislation as the only coherent and meaningful response to Bush within the terms of U.S. constitutional government. But is that possible? Are Democrats doing their pitiful best? Are they to be pitied, or is the whole country for actually needing them to succeed in their paltry efforts at registering quavering objections?

I honestly don't know.

Should the Democrats be appreciated, at all, for attempting to do something, anything, to revive a system that is obviously no more than an infested carcass?

Or should the Democrats be attacked for perpetuating the illusion that the U.S. government is anything more than rotten flesh waiting to be eaten by vultures?

Is there anything constructive that the Democrats could really do beyond resigning en masse? I guess that's my real question. Any answers?

Shit Romney 


Wednesday, July 18, 2007

The People's Emergency Sanitarium 

I don't know what all this fillibusterin's about, but how cool is this photo? So The Shining. If only there were a batshit-crazy murderer running around...oh wait there is, John McCain, I forgot.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

I Do Respect My Service 

Dawkins passes along this choice fragment of testimony. I haven't been watching nearly enough C-Span this summer.

Sunday, July 15, 2007

is the "T" in T-man for True? 

T-man comics #3 from 1952 (click image to enlarge)

via Boing Boing


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?